The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Volume 13 Issue 2 June Article 6 May 1986 On the Dialectics of Social Theory and Action: A Synthesis of Six Models of Community Engagement Drew Hyman Pennsylvania State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw Part of the Social Work Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Hyman, Drew (1986) "On the Dialectics of Social Theory and Action: A Synthesis of Six Models of Community Engagement," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 13 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol13/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you by the Western Michigan University School of Social Work. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ON THE DIALECTICS OF SOCIAL THEORY AND ACTION: A SYNTHESIS OF SIX MODELS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Drew Hyman The Pennsylvania State University ABSTRACT Two dominant theoretical perspectives--systems theory and conflict theory--can be seen to underlie major approaches to community intervention. This paper presents a conceptual linkage between models of intervention for planning and organizing as developed by Rothman and elaborated by Stockdale and major sociological theories of society. Two additional models are presented to address issues of management and administration. The six models are integrated into a typology which integrates the conflict and consensus theories of society in relation to the The result is a synthesis of six models for community engagement which is rooted in dialectically opposed theories of society, and which addresses the major functions of any system of organization--planning,organizing/implementation, and management. Introduction The inquiry into community intervention models to date has been practice-driven, with theory following the emergence of models in the field rather than vice versa. This paper suggests that two dominant theoretical perspectives which have evolved in Western thought can be seen to underlie major approaches to community intervention, and it presents an approach toward synthesis of models for theory and practice. Prior to Jack Rothman's (1968) seminal article, the literature and practice of community intervention was directed primarily to community-based grassroots strategies emerging from community development approaches which emphasized educational methods and self-help projects. Rothman notes that in the 1960's a "social action" approach emerged in the civil rights and welfare rights movements associated with Saul Alinsky and the Industrial Areas Foundation, as well as the anti-Vietnam War movement and aspects of community action programs associated with the War on Poverty. Similarly, Perloff (1961) and Morris and Binstock (1966) articulate "social '265 planning" as an approach to community intervention. Hence Rothman's three models--locality development, social action and social planning. In the mid 1970's, Stockdale (1976) suggested that the social planning model should be bifurcated to reflect differences between more centralized and community-wide planning and community or interest-based "advocacy planning." This paper has four primary objectives: (1) To provide a conceptual linkage between the RothmanlStockdale models of intervention and major sociological theories of society, (2) To create a typology which integrates the conflict and consensus theories of society in relation to the intervention models for planning and organizing, (3) To present two additional models of intervention which provide a basis for including management and administration in the framework developed herein, and (4) To examine the interrelationships of the models of management and administration to both the theories of society and the models of intervention. The result is a synthesis of six models for community engagement which is rooted in dialectically opposed theories of society, and which addresses major functions of any organization or system--planning, organizing-implementation, and management. The Consensus And Conflict Theories Of Society The consensus and conflict perspectives have deep roots in human thought. In Western philosophy and science, fundamental differences between Plato and Aristotle, Rousseau and Hobbes, and Weber and Marx, can be seen to revolve around the question of whether human societies are rooted in rationality, consensus and shared values, or whether they are characterized by subjectivity, conflict and constraint. Ralf Dahrendorf (1959) identifies the dialectical characteristics of the two competing macro-views of society. According to consensus theory, social order results from a dominant set of shared values. People create communities to promote common interests and to escape from the "nasty, brutish and short" life of the pre-civilized. This perspective, in turn, leads to an integration theory of society which suggests that society is a relatively stable equilibrium based on a consensus of shared values and common patterns of interaction. Systems theory tends to be associated with this perspective. The competing approach, conflict theory, asserts that social order is based on domination and constraint. Communities result from a survival of the fittest contest wherein the prize to the winners is the right to impose their will on others. This perspective, in turn, leads to a coercion theory of society wherein contending forces continually vie for domination and control: conflict and change are ubiquitous. The theorist points out that these theories represent "two faces of society," and should be viewed as such. Each side focuses on certain aspects of the totality to explain certain phenomena. 266 Consensus or systems theory asks why societies hang together, and conflict theory asks why they change. Consensus theory tends to focus on the cooperative side of society. By focusing on shared values, voluntary compliance, consensus, and mutual benefit, society appears to be comprised of people who join together in a common venture. The results are integration, stability and equilibrium. The contrasting view of society observes that dissimilar interests and imbalances in power lead to the domination of some by others. This situation creates systems of stratification and heirarchy whereby some individuals and groups can control others, and they extract greater portions of social goods--class, status, power--for themselves. (We note, however, that the conflict theorists are the ones that give hope of change and of breaking out of systemic situations of stagnation, domination and coercion.) By being aware of both of these perspectives, we can approach the questions of change and stability with the understanding that each is but a "face" of the other. Reality reflects each face from the perspective of the viewer. The following sections explore six strategies, or models, for directing and changing community systems and human services programs. The first four models of change address planning and organizing, and have been articulated previously by Rothman (1968, 1974) and Stockdale (1976), and will simply be summarized here. The last two models are developed herein to extend the previous works to encompass the fields of management and administration. Consideration of ideal types of planning, organizing-implementation, and management, in light of the consensus and conflict theories of society, provides a repertoire of perspectives with which to approach the analysis, development, operation and evaluation of community systems. Two Models of Organizing And Implementation: The experience and practice of community development and community organizing are similar to that required for implementation, for they address the process of placing new or revised programs or systems in communities. This comparison is based on the fact that it is necessary for those who intend to implement a program or reform (1) to gain the acceptance of those affected, (2) to gain access to those with influence over those affected, or (3) to acquire positions of power and influence themselves. Organizing and implementation involve setting a program in motion or in place. "Locality development" and "social action" are the two models of organizing identified by the Rothman/Stockdale typology. Locality development conforms most closely to the consensus theory of society and is thus associated with traditional community development. It emphasizes self-help and concerted local action by the overall community. Implementation and change is seen as a 267 matter of communication among leaders and citizens (and planners) to gain an understanding of what needs to be done. Thus, the practitioner serves the process of facilitation of communications and interactions among all concerned. As stated by Rothman, The basic change strategy involves getting a broad cross section of people involved in studying and taking action on their problems. Consensus strategies are employed, involving small- group discussion and fostering communication among community subparts (class, ethnic, and so forth). The practitioner. .is especially skilled in manipulating and guiding small-group interaction. (Rothman, 1974, 34.) Locality development thus assumes that the community is comprised of people who share values and orientations, and who subscribe to democratic processes of decision-making and control. President Lyndon Johnson's favorite phrase, "Come let us reason together," typefies this model. The contrasting model, social action, also emphasizes grassroots strategies,